I came up with this thought when I saw three recordings I downloaded from Suprnova.org:

1. Somebody defeating SMB3 in 10:45 (although I just discovered this person used save states...)
2. Somebody (maybe the same person?) defeating all worlds and levels of SMB3 in about seventy-five minutes. (probably using the same method?)
3. Somebody defeated Quake in twelve and a half minutes. Dang.

So I was thinking... why can't we do something similar with arcade games? There's plenty of games where we could do this for sure.

Here's a short version of rules I'm thinking of:
1a. Time starts when the player gains control, or when the player hits the "1P" button, and ends when the player defeats the final boss, or when the player finishes the game and terminates the recording... either of which I can use an opinion on.
1b. If the arcade game uses a timer and it moves at a constant rate, that particular timer can be used. (I.E. Neo Drift Out's timer can be used, but Super Mario Brothers 3's timer cannot... the later slows down when you use the P)

2. If nobody finishes the game, the person who goes the farthest, in number of stages, wins. If a tie exists there, the person who completes the last stage completed in the fastest time wins.

3a. After the first competition (where I will choose the game), the winner picks the next game, provided it's a different genre of the last game. (So no OutRun followed by Neo Drift Out, or something like that.)
3b. No picking games that go on forever (like Galaga, level D) or finish in a nearly constant time period. (like Pac-Man) However, considering a game finished after a certain number of levels would be allowed (like you "beat the game" in the two examples mentioned after ten levels, for instance)
4. If you choose the game, you can win that competition, but you can't choose the next game. (that means you can't choose games for two competitions in a row)

I'll discuss more technical rules later (or on request/question), but first things first... do you think this idea rules or does it suck? Questions welcome as always.

love this idea, especially for games that are no longer competative when you learn you can get an infinite amount of points leeching.

I would suggest not enforcing a starting period and ending period but entrants must submit inp files that are truncated. I.e. all inp files in the contest must be the same file size, and the person that has the highest score after the truncated inp has been played to fruition would win. So you don't have to worry about what your score is after a certain time period you could use a program that just chops the inp file up to the regulated size and then play it back to verify your timed score... The size of the file would depend on the game and there might be some glitches at the end of the file if it truncates in the middle of a frame but i think it would work a lot easier than using a stop watch or counting frames to figure out the score (or levels completed!).

I.e. i'd be more than happy to provide an inp file truncator :)

***Edit : actually that's not the idea you were suggesting but i guess the post might have some value so i wont' delete it...

yeah, something like this would and perhaps should be used for those RPG/adventure type games that have an ending where the differences in score are really just about who leeches more.

If you based it the MARP points and placing on time only for these games, you add back a competitive element that is lacking.

Plus, you encourage seeing some potentially more awesome replays than leeching ones for these types of games as it generally takes more skill to get through a game faster.

We could even have special rules for this that also disallow warps for games like Super Mario Brothers so you get to see the entire game played out...as fast as they can do it on 1 run. We all know scores within the game for games like SMB don't really mean all that much...yet MARP still uses that for the scoreboard.

That is a lot more interesting IMHO versus someone just leeching more points.

[Grins] A shameless plug to say the least since I've had the honour of working with them and got a small writing credit in Scourge Done Slick [which I may add is an ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE run/movie][/quote]

So I was thinking... why can't we do something similar with arcade games? There's plenty of games where we could do this for sure.

This has got a LOT of potential and I hope this takes flight ^^ A fun side project to reffing Deca2k4 to say the least ^^

gameboy9 wrote:
Here's a short version of rules I'm thinking of:
1a. Time starts when the player gains control, or when the player hits the "1P" button, and ends when the player defeats the final boss, or when the player finishes the game and terminates the recording... either of which I can use an opinion on.
1b. If the arcade game uses a timer and it moves at a constant rate, that particular timer can be used. (I.E. Neo Drift Out's timer can be used, but Super Mario Brothers 3's timer cannot... the later slows down when you use the P)

2. If nobody finishes the game, the person who goes the farthest, in number of stages, wins. If a tie exists there, the person who completes the last stage completed in the fastest time wins.

LN2 wrote:We could even have special rules for this that also disallow warps for games like Super Mario Brothers so you get to see the entire game played out...as fast as they can do it on 1 run. We all know scores within the game for games like SMB don't really mean all that much...yet MARP still uses that for the scoreboard.
.

You're right Rick. And, at jvrm we must make levels (stages, rounds...) in the right order (rd 1 then rd 2, then rd 3...) in the games where we can choose them.

I was thinking that this time concept should be applied to some games on the MARP scoreboard....adding special rules.

This would make them more competitive and have better and more skilled replay files as a result for particular games chosen.

Yes, for contests, you have a lot more options.

Personally I would hope warps wouldn't be allowed though cuz a replay file showing the person going through all of the game versus only 10% of it is a lot more entertaining...plus different for playing for the fastest time also as shortening the game further limits mistakes you can make etc.

Endurance of someone to play through the entire game without enough mistakes that someone else could match or beat it would be there also...whereas if warps are allowed it's possible to get a submission so close to the absolute fastest time it would be nearly impossible to beat.

For a game like SMB3, you still don't have to play 100% of the levels to get to the end....just no warps and no star road shortcuts would be nice so we see and those playing get to play through the worlds....most of the levels at least.

I again am referring to the scoreboard cuz it seems cutting the game by allowing warps to only 15 minutes or less versus having it be 1+ hour just leaves a lot out of the scoreboard competition.

For contest, you very well might want that shorter time for each submission so allow the warps and star road use etc.

i think there are two schools here, gameboy is bringing up a new contest where completion of a game or levels with the fastest time is measured and there is another school where marathonable games should just be TIMED where you only get a certain amount of time to do your thing to get the most levels or points you can with in that time period. I'm for both schools, but i'd like to see the TIMED school applied to games on regulation as well. They can easily be enforced by having an inp file sniper that will trim all inp files submited for these special marathonable games to a certain size and then their scores at the end of the trimed inp files can be competed against... but i (and gameboy) thinks that belongs on a thread not in gameboy's tournament?

LN2 wrote:For a game like SMB3, you still don't have to play 100% of the levels to get to the end....just no warps and no star road shortcuts would be nice so we see and those playing get to play through the worlds....most of the levels at least..

Wow ! You found Star Road in Super Mario Bros 3 ? How you made it ? I want to know all

Francois Daniel wrote:Wow ! You found Star Road in Super Mario Bros 3 ? How you made it ? I want to know all

Fine fine...Super Mario World.

You got my point...the issue is the same for SMB, SMB3 and SMW. Score means little to nothing...yet MARP still uses the score as the basis for tracking.

Here, let me just "accidentally" die a few more times on a couple levels so I can score another 100k in points.

Someone playing those games at a high level not dying at all or dying only once or twice likely will end up with quite a bit less score than someone not as good in the game, often dying but still able to complete it.

That just doens't seem right to me. If you have time of completion translate to some score for the MARP board instead, then the best skilled players will play through it. Dying less results in faster times.